Caterina Innocente: What are your thoughts on the Saturday, Sept. 24 political reshuffle, in which Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced he will seek the presidency in the upcoming March elections? Also, what would your comment be on Kudrin being fired earlier today, Sept. 26?

Boris Nemtsov: As a matter of form, this political reshuffle translated into a humiliation for the people of Russia, given that Putin and Medvedev didn’t even attempt to make it look like people had the right to hold their own opinion, the right to make their own choices. And in terms of its substance, the scenario translates not only into a usurpation, but also into a failure to transfer power. It is becoming obvious that Putin is choosing Lukashenko's path [Alexander Lukashenko is the Belarusian dictator. — Ed.] The consequences for the country will be quite serious: emigration of businesspeople and of people with higher education; capital flight; further enrichment of those who are close to the Kremlin; and further infrastructure collapse.

Alexei Kudrin being fired is a very bad sign. Kudrin was one of the few who could prevent — and had prevented — the collapse of the financial system.

C.I.: There is another disturbing development: The President signed a decree expelling Mikhail Prokhorov from the Commission for the Modernization and Technological Development of the Russian Economy.

B.N.: The main lesson to be learned from the recent weeks' events is: if you want to be in Putin’s paradigm, you have to be a puppet, 100 percent. The regime no longer permits any kind of independence, no matter how minimal. The second thing Prokhorov's story proves is that it is impossible to change the system from the inside. In fact, Prokhorov never said he was with the opposition. He said, we shall do things little by little ... a touch of polish here, a bit of modernization there ... . But the regime has already proven itself to be so rigid that to reform it from within would simply be impossible.

C.I.: You often describe yourself as a passionarii. This term took on a political life of its own (after the ethnologist Lev Gumilev’s failed theory of passionate ethnogenesis). Today, passionarii are defined as people who are enterprising, active, willing to risk everything and put their needs second to the achievement of a particular goal. Were you always like that? Is that part of your character?

B.N.: No, this wasn’t part of my character. I became this way when I switched to the opposition.

C.I.: Tell me, Boris, is it worth sacrificing your life for a nation that is so totally apathetic — that either doesn't know whether it wants a change, or if it does, sure is keeping it a secret?

B.N.: Well, Cat, we have different types of people here. There are people who are cynical and absolutely passive; people who don’t care for change. It is not worth going to jail for those types of people. On the other hand, there are also people like me who believe that being a slave and a puppet is a disaster... yet, we are unwilling to emigrate.

C.I.: And what percentage of people are like you?

B.N.: There is a very small percentage of people like me, because in principle there is a very small percentage of passionates [people who are willing to put a cause before their own personal well-being] in any country. But I think there are a lot of people [in Russia] for whom freedom and dignity are important. I think there are 30 million such people — about 20 percent of the population. And by the way, these are non-speculative figures derived from polls conducted by Levada and others. Twenty percent of citizens share the same value system on such topics as “when freedom is more important than bread” and “European elections,” etc. This is mainly true in big cities among well-educated, well-established people age 30 and above.

C.I.: In order to change Russia, what percentage of the population should be politically galvanized and desirous of change?

B.N.: Fifty percent.

Twenty percent is not an insignificant number — 30 million people is a lot, isn’t it? But in Russia, it is not enough to launch modernization and political reform. And Putin is skillfully cultivating a slave-like serf mentality among the masses, cleverly implanting vile cynicism and paternalism. He skillfully explains to people, “Sit quietly. I’m the smartest among you. I know how to help you. And the main thing is, do not interfere.” This is a catastrophic scenario for the country. Instead of promoting initiative and giving people the opportunity for self-realization, he has wrapped everything in barbed wire.

C.I.: In recent years, has the percentage of passionates increased? How can it be increased?

B.N.: This percentage is quite stable. Unfortunately, the percentage of other types of people has grown: the percentage of people who wish to leave the country. These people are part of the 20 percent that we’ve just talked about. Forty percent of people younger than 30 year want to leave, which is an unprecedented situation.

C.I.: What would be your explanation?

B.N.: Putinism destroys social mobility. If you are not in the KGB, if you are not in Gazprom, if you haven’t worked in City Hall and haven’t latched onto some governor, then it’s impossible to have a career in business or politics. The lack of future prospects pushes young people toward emigration. Not all of them have the ability to leave, but most of them want to. I was speaking to some journalist-musicologists at Moscow State University (MGU) alongside Artem Troitsky. There were about 200 of them. I asked them, “raise your hand if you want to leave.” These people were musicologists! About 80 percent raised their hands. And that was at MGU.

C.I.: On the question of prospects: what are the general prospects for the country (and the people) after the elections? What is your “2012 Scenario?”

B.N.: First of all, we don’t have elections. We have special electoral-like operations. And if you don’t get too distracted by the rhetoric, on the one hand the apathy will grow and on the other, the anger and the protests. Slowly but surely, the disappointment will increase and, most importantly, the Putin-fatigue will increase. The fact is that no matter what the country, every dictator and authoritarian leader goes through a very clear set of phases of how he is viewed by the people.

C.I.: As with any human relationship, I guess...

B.N.: Yes. It all starts with enthusiasm, love and adoration. Then enthusiasm goes away but there is still an element of hope. Afterward, hope disappears and only disappointment is left. Then irritation accumulates, which transforms into distrust, and distrust in turn transforms into hatred.

C.I.: President Obama is also going through these phases, at least through some of them.

B.N.: The difference is that President Obama, even after going through these phases, only risks not being re-elected. But the United States will do without upheavals and North African revolutions, because people there have the right to be irritated and this irritation is shown at the polling places. The problem with Putinism, as with any authoritarian regime, is that by destroying the opportunity to get rid of the hated regime peacefully, he is pushing the country toward revolution.

C.I.: And is that going to happen?

B.N.: Putin is a Russian Mubarak in his purest form. He will be back in the Kremlin for sure. Medvedev looks pitiful these days. At least he used to be a blogger, now it’s just pathetic.

C.I.: So, Putin returns to the Kremlin. Then what?

B.N.: Then he will definitely start to lose his popularity. The understanding will grow that this is a government of thieves. The irritation will grow. The injustice, vileness and instability will increase the activism. Finally, in three to five years, the hated leader will become such a thorn that even people who were absolutely passive before will become galvanized for any reason.

The question I cannot answer is: when will it happen? That I do not know. It doesn't just depend on how fast he becomes hated, it also depends on economic conditions. Of course, if the United States continues to print 1 trillion dollars a year, it will be a gift to Putin, because despite the economic crisis, oil prices will continue to rise.

C.I.: Thus, the Russians should be praying for the U.S to improve its economic health and  stop printing money?

B.N.: No. Putin is not only hoping for expensive oil but for the price of oil to rise forever. Expensive oil prices are simply not enough. When I was in the government, the threshold for a non-deficit budget was around $20 per barrel. When Putin became president, the threshold for a non-deficit budget was around $40 per barrel. Now, $120 is already not enough; a gluttonous and thieving government has been created that not only needs expensive oil but needs the price of oil to rise forever. Even Obama, with his money-printing, won’t be of help here. Because in the crisis that will most likely occur and grow globally over the coming years, the price of oil will remain high but will not increase.

C.I.: If not cheap oil, what other conditions can succeed in fracturing the regime?

B.N.: First of all, the collapse of the pension system. The pension fund is already in bankruptcy, but due to high oil prices, the fund deficit (more than $100 million dollars) is covered by the budget. This is the main item of expenditure. Putin increased pension growth-rates to score election points. How he is going to pay those pensions, no one knows. The bankruptcy of the pension system will dramatically increase the retirement age (while life expectancy is low) or will lead to a pension freeze. Considering that Putin’s main electoral base consists of retirees, this will be the end. In addition, since people are accustomed to freeloading, it is unclear what Putin will say when the freeloading comes to an end. And it will end, due to financial circumstances.

Second are the tragedies of Yaroslavl, of the Bulgars, and of the falling Tu-134 aircraft. The collapse of infrastructure as an institutionalized process. This angers me.

C.I.: Will the collapse of infrastructure become the match that at some point sets everything alight?

B.N.: Yes. In Yaroslavl, over one hundred thousand people came to the funeral. If, God forbid, that had happened in Moscow, it would have been over a million. A million people gathered together for such an occasion could sweep away the regime in a second, if they wanted to. And no one would be able to stop them. Therefore, the collapse of infrastructure could be one of the reasons leading to serious unrest.

I am not a revolutionary. And not only because I will soon be turning 52 years old, but mostly because I clearly know that in Russia, during revolution, bloody and unpredictable consequences are possible. I do not want bloody consequences. Craving power, like Putin, means leading Russia into a bloody revolution. And in this case, the blood-soaked scenario is going to leave blood on the hands of one person. Putin had better understand this 100 percent. This bloodshed will have been caused by Putin — not by the opposition movement and not by Strategy-31. Destroying any possibility of him quietly bowing out will lead to inevitable collapse. This scenario is dangerous in other countries as well, but in a country like Russia, it is especially dangerous.

C.I.: What are the goals that the opposition set for itself in 2012?

B.N.: Right now we are trying to organize a peaceful protest called “Campaign ‘Vote against everybody!’” We would like as many people as possible to realize that this is not an election but a farce, and to join this peaceful protest. We are criticized; they say we are going to get one percent of the voters, two percent at most. But this is not a matter of percentages, but of the actual amount of people. One percent amounts to  500,000 people. For the opposition, the fact that 500,000 people consciously came and wrote with a marker “Down with the power of thieves!” was a huge success. The opposition is proud when 5,000 people come to a rally, and if 500,000 people come, that’s just super!

C.I.: It seems, however, that Putin is much more afraid of Prokhorov than of the opposition.

B.N.: Not really. Putin isn’t much more afraid of Prokhorov — Putin is afraid of everyone and of each individual in his own way. That’s his background: he has always lost in a competitive fight. Putin is afraid of any competition. He is afraid of Prokhorov because Prokhorov has too much money, and it is unclear how that money can be used. And he is afraid of us because we cannot be bought — we are too convinced.

C.I.: Maybe not everyone can be bought, but everyone can be put in jail, right?

B.N.: Everyone can be jailed. But as I understand it, Putin doesn’t really know what to do with Khodorkovsky next. What if there were a lot of people like Khodorkovsky? Then Putin would become 100 percent unapproachable and would turn into a Lukashenko. For Comrade Putin, as a person of sybaritic views, the prospect of ending up as persona non grata is not very impressive.

C.I.: How influential of a measure is an expansion of the Cardin List?

B.N.: Very influential. If we had an independent justice system, we wouldn’t need such laws in Europe and the United States. But for now, we don’t have such a system; and yet, we still need to punish the criminals. Criminals are seriously afraid of such laws. So yes, I believe that such lists are an effective tool.

One important clarification: pressuring a country is counterproductive. And the Jackson-Vanik (link) amendment should be repealed because in today’s world, such amendments are utter nonsense. What is effective is pressure on specific thieves and murderers. I can tell you that as soon as this bill appeared on the Senate floor, visits from Moscow significantly increased. Everyone started running around Washington: Surkov, Lavrov and now Kislyak. The entire Russian embassy in Washington is running around, trying to stop the passing of this bill.

C.I.: What needs to be done in order to instill in people a love for democracy? For his part, Putin is tirelessly dredging up the propaganda.

B.N.: He is simply exploiting the established habits of mind.

C.I.: Okay, so it is easier for Putin. Still, what should be done in order to change each and every person's way of thinking?

B.N.: Only education and personal example will do. That’s it. This is much harder than the exploitation of instincts [with slogans like] “beat the rich” [or] “beat the Jews.” What Putin is doing is easy to do. Just as easy as building an authoritarian society in a country that is already inclined to be obedient. The opposition, on the other hand, has a difficult task to do. The figure of 50 percent that we’ve started with is difficult to achieve. If people weren’t such zombies and saw objective information on TV instead of constant and merciless propaganda, I’m sure most of the adult population would understand the direct connection between freedom, independence and the wallet. The tragedy in Russia is that people don’t see that connection. People are taught that freedom is chaos and chaos is poverty. False parallels are built: freedom equals chaos equals poverty, and democracy equals lawlessness equals arbitrariness. “The Wild `90s” is used as an example, although Putin himself is a product of the `90s.

C.I.: The presidential campaign will eventually end, and so will the “Vote against everybody!” campaign. Do you have any further plans of action?

B.N.: Next, I think that it is extremely important to provide an alternative. I am sure that the current regime is doomed. We need to continue pursuing, in the European courts, the registration of parties and the filing of anti-corruption reports, which is what I did, and will continue to do. We must build and strengthen the structure of the opposition in the country.

C.I.: Are you saying you are ready for daily routine work?

B.N.: Cat, let me explain plainly: in Russia one should live long (and, hopefully, live happily, but most importantly, live long). This fight with Putin is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. This will continue for many, many years. You need to always be in top shape for such a struggle and be ready to endure extreme conditions. But, unfortunately, in the opposition, there aren’t that many active people who are ready for that. People are ready for the 4th of December or for next March, but when you tell them that we will still be writing Putin-Itogi for the next seven, maybe ten years, people are not ready for that. When you tell people that we will have to participate in Strategy-31 another five years and we might go to prison for an unknown period of time, when you explain that to them, it becomes apparent that only the passionates are ready for a marathon, and there aren’t many of those. I have one problem: I don’t want to emigrate. I love Russia, and [I say this] without pathos. Even though at times Russia can be uncomfortable, dirty, and nauseating. That is why I want to provide an alternative.